Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of electronic audit and feedback interventions identified by the review

From: A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory

Study ID Linder et al. 2010 [38] Peiris et al. 2015 [40, 41] Thomas et al. 2007 [39] Carney et al. 2011 [33, 37] Carlhed et al. 2006 [34] Guldberg et al. 2011 [36] Gude et al. 2016 [35]
Study design CRCT CRCT CRCT RCT RCT CRCT CRCT
A&F domain Prescribing and management of drugs, acute care management Prescribing and management of drugs, guide primary prevention and screening Chronic disease management Guide primary prevention and screening Acute care management Chronic disease management Chronic care management
Feedback recipients Physicians Physicians Physicians Physicians Interdisciplinary clinical teams Interdisciplinary clinical teams Interdisciplinary clinical teams
Direction of change required Reduce current behaviour Increase current behaviour Unclear Reduce current behaviour Increase current behaviour Increase current behaviour Increase current behaviour
A&F implementation EHR-integrated tools Web panel screens Software panel screens Web panel screens Web panel screens Distributed as software update Web panel screens
Interactive A&F component Drill down to patient level; select indicators for feedback Drill down to patient level; select indicators for feedback Choose presentation mode Select indicators for feedback Select indicators for feedback Drill down to patient level; select indicators for feedback Select indicators for action plan
Feedback presentation mode Graphical summaries Graphical summaries Text summaries Unclear Graphical summaries Tabular data, graphical summaries List summaries, with ‘traffic light’ icons
Frequency of feedback updates Monthly (automatically) Bi-monthly (automatically) Bi-monthly (automatically) Every login Real-time 3 times (month 1, month 3, month 12) during the trial by software update Quarterly
Target goals basis National CDC recommendations Australian medical guideline recommendations National evidence-based guideline recommendations Radiologist defined their own goals National evidence-based guideline recommendations National evidence-based guideline recommendations National evidence-based guideline recommendations
Action planning used No No No Yes Yes No Yes
Benchmarks and comparators Clinician vs peer average performance vs national benchmark (identified through expert analysis) Peer-ranked performance data benchmarked against participating trial sites Clinician vs aggregate average resident performance (based on Institute for clinical systems improvement targets) Radiologist performance vs trial peers’ performance vs achievable national benchmarks Local team vs average trial peers’ performance; local team vs national average performance Local practice performance vs average performance of trial peers Local team-based performance vs. peer performance (calculated as achievable benchmarks)
Intervention duration (months) 9 12 12 21 18 14 19.8 and 22.5a
Participants in study (n) Primary care practices (27) Primary healthcare centres (60) Clinical groups (residents) within hospital Clinical groups (radiologists) between regional hospitals Multi-disciplinary teams between hospitals (38) General practices (86) Cardiac rehabilitation
Centres (18)
Outcome type Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures Dichotomous process measures and patient outcomes
Comparator arm A&F vs current practice A&F vs current practice A&F vs current practice A&F vs current practice Head-to-head comparison of A&F A&F vs current practice Head-to-head comparison of A&F
Role of e-A&F in overall QI strategyb Core Moderate Minimal Core Moderate Core Core
Baseline performance known Unclear Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Risk of bias Medium Low Medium Unclear High Medium Low
  1. Abbreviations: A&F audit and feedback, CRCT cluster randomised controlled trial, RCT randomised controlled trial, CDC Centre for Disease Control, QI quality improvement
  2. aAverage length of study period per centre in both arms of the intervention (from table 2 [35]). bOn a 3-point scale (minimal, moderate and core).
  3. Study-specific risk of bias assessment can be found in Additional file 4